Accusation of Ab Bakr and

Umar not being present

during the boycott

by:

Mowln Mohr Muammad Miynwlaw

WWW.MAHAJJAH.COM
 Transliteration key

- -
- -
- b -
- t -
- th - gh
- j - f
- - q
- kh - k
- d - l
- dh - m
- r - n
- z - w,
- s - h
- sh - y,
-
 Chapter One

Question Regarding the Boycott in the Valley of Ab lib

History bears testimony to the fact that the Quraysh of Makkah Mukarramah
had completely boycotted Raslullh H for three years. Ab lib took the
entire tribe of Ban Hshim to the valley known as Shiab Ab lib. The Ban
Hshim spent these three years in extreme difficulty and plight. Where were Ab
Bakr I and Umar I in this time?

If they could not go into Shiab Ab Tlib with Raslullh H, then why did
they not help Raslullh H with water or provision at any time, whereas
Zuhayr ibn Umayyah ibn Mughrah had encouraged his friends to break the
boycott agreement?

Answer:
A number of points need to be taken into consideration first, from which the
reality of this objection will become clear. We need to first determine why did
the incident of the boycott take place? Were all Muslims boycotted, even if not
from the Ban Hshim? Were the Muslims able to send aid in the form of food and
provisions to those who were boycotted?

As for the first issue (why the boycott took place), all historians agree that after
the uncle of Raslullh H, Sayyid al-Shuhad amzah ibn Abd al-Mualib
and Sayyidun Umar Ibn al-Khab L accepted Islam, the world of disbelief
and polytheism was shaken. This prompted the disbelievers to take radical steps
to stem the growth of Islam. The disbelievers even suggested executing Raslullh
H (we seek the protection of Allah).

In accordance to Arab custom, Ab lib had gathered the Ban Hshim and Ban
Abd al-Mualib, which was protocol of that time, and decided to take refuge
in the valley; so that the disbelievers will be unable to attack them all at once.
Thus, the disbelievers prepared a document wherein the tribes agreed to boycott
the Muslims, which was subsequently hung in the Kabah. The document placed
restrictions on dealing with the Ban Hshim, marrying them and on providing
provisions to them. The famous historian, al-abar, states:

When Umar I accepted Islam, and Islam began spreading amongst the
different tribes, and al-Najsh gave asylum to the Muslims who sought
it from him, the Quraysh gathered and decided to write a document
stipulating that none will marry any of the Ban Hshim and Ban Mualib
and none will give their relatives to them in marriage.1

Moreover, in volume 2, page 335, it states that Sayyidun Umar ibn al-Khab
I May thousands of the mercies of Allah descend upon him embraced Islam,

and he was a resolute, strong and formidable individual. Sayyidun amzah ibn
Abd al-Mualib I had also embraced Islam just before him, resulting in the

1 vol. 2 p. 342

4
companions of Raslullh H finding strength; and as a result Islam began
to spread in the tribes.

fi Ibn Kathr V (d. 680 A.H) reports in al-Bidyah wa al-Nihyah, on the

authority of Ibn Isq:

Umar accepted Islam, and he was an awe-inspiring individual. None could

grumble or dispute in front of him. The abah of Raslullh H were
protected by means of him and amzah, to the extent that the Quraysh
were angered.

Sayyidun Abd Allh ibn Masd I used to say:

We could not perform alh at the Kabah but when Umar embraced
Islam, he fought the disbelievers of the Quraysh and performed alh at
the Kabah, and we used to perform it with him.

It is reported in a al-Bukhr that Sayyidun Ibn Masd I said:

We have not ceased being honoured from the day Umar embraced Islam.

He also said:

The Islam of Umar was a victory (for Islam), his migration (to Madnah) a
help, and his khilfah was a mercy (for Islam). We could not perform alh
at the Kabah at first, until Umar embraced Islam. He fought the Quraysh,
and he performed alh at the Kabah and we performed alh with him.

In the Shi book, Rowat al-af (vol. 2 p. 49) with reference to Kashf al-Asrr (p.
15), the following is written with regards to the reason for the boycott:

By amzah and Umar embracing Islam, Islam was elevated, and as a result
the Quraysh plotted to kill Raslullh H. Ab lib came to know
of this, and gathered the Ban Hshim and Ban Mualib; seeking their

5
 assistance and protection for Raslullh H. By their consensus, they
went to the valley of Ab lib.

We learn from these clear Sunn and Sh texts that after Sayyidun amzah and
Sayyidun Umar L embraced Islam, a revolution began. The disbelievers were
infuriated on seeing the widespread propagation of Islam amongst the various
tribes, resulting in the mentioned cause of action.

Now in terms of intelligence, it is far-fetched to believe that the disbelievers

would leave alone the very person whose acceptance of Islam had so enraged
them, such that this fury led them to even call for the execution of Raslullh
H.

In fact, in a al-Bukhr (vol. 1 p. 542) it is clearly stated that when Sayyidun

Umar I embraced Islam, he informed Ab Jahl and other leaders of the
Quraysh of his new faith, and even fought the disbelievers of when they attacked
him. As a result, the disbelievers of Makkah laid siege to his house, with the
intention to kill him, and their numbers filled the streets. Sayyidun Umar I
was trapped in his home. One of the leaders, ibn Wil, gave him protection
and the disbelievers returned to their homes.

In accordance to the information at our disposal, all the disbelievers had plotted
to kill Raslullh H before the night of migration and before the departure
to the valley, and thereafter Sayyidun Umar I. It can be gauged from this
that the disbelievers harboured the same enmity for Sayyidun Umar I as
they did for Raslullh H. If he is not regarded to have been present in the
valley during the boycott, then the siege on his home was even worse; wherein
the swords of the entire city were raised just outside his door.

As for the second issue (were other Muslims also boycotted), our view is that
other Muslims were also included in the boycott together with the Ban Hshim.
Instead of a siege on their homes, it was a source of honour for them to be

6
boycotted along with their beloved Rasl H, and share in the difficulty he
endured.

Akbar Khn Najbbd mentioned the following sentence repeatedly, concerning

the incident of the valley:

Whatever amount of Muslims there were, they too were with the Ban
Hshim in this difficulty, known famously as Shiab Ab lib.1

He writes regarding the end of the boycott:

The Ban Hshim and all the Muslims came out after three years and
they returned to Makkah and began living in their homes. In the valley of
Ab lib, the Muslims were restless because of hunger and most of them
would eat the leaves of the trees. The condition of some reached the extent
that if they found a dry skin; they would clean it, soften it, put it on the fire,
roast it and chew it.2

It is apparent that Sayyidun Ab Bakr and Sayyidun Umar L were part of

the group of Muslims. They too went into the valley and were boycotted. Mowln
Abd al-Shakr Lakhnaw V has clearly mentioned in Khulaf-e Rshidn that
Sayyidun Ab Bakr I was with Raslullh H in the valley, as one of his
attributes.3

Sayyidun Ab Bakr I shared in this difficulty, he accompanied Raslullh

H in the valley, where he too stayed. When Allah delivered Raslullh
H from this difficulty, then Sayyidun Ab Bakr I (and the other
Muslims) were also saved. Ab lib mentions this incident in the following
poem:

1 Trkh al-Islm p. 113

2 Ibid p. 104
3 Khulaf-e Rshidn p. 30

They (the Quraysh) sent back Sahl ibn Bay pleased (upon the breaking
of the pact),
This pleased Ab Bakr and Muammad H.

This incident is also mentioned in al-Istb of Allmah Ibn Abd al-Barr V. We

learn from this poem that according to Ab lib, Sayyidun Ab Bakr I was
a sincere believer and devout companion, as only then would Ab lib have
mentioned his joy upon the termination of the boycott.

The non-Hshim, Sayyidun Sad ibn Ab Waqqs I conqueror of Iran

(whose full name was Sad ibn Mlik ibn Wuhayb ibn Abd Manf ibn Zuhra ibn
1

Kilb) one of the ten promised Jannah; narrates that once he laid his hands on a
dry piece of skin at night. He washed it and then roasted it on fire; he then mixed
it with water and drank it.2

The following is stated in ayt al-abah (vol. 2 p. 324), with reference from
ilyat al-Awliy (vol. 1 p. 93) on the authority of Sayyidun Sad I:

We are the people who stayed with Raslullh H in Makkah. Our

lives and the life of Raslullh H were marked with severe hardship
and difficulty. When we were in this difficulty (during the boycott in the
valley), we became accustomed to poverty, want and adversity. We bore all
of this with patience and tolerance. Whilst staying with Raslullh H
in Makkah, I awoke to relieve myself in the darkness of the night. I heard
a scratching sound, and when I looked carefully, I discovered that it was a
piece of camel skin. I picked it up, washed it, then burnt it and crushed it
into powder using two stones. I then gulped it down with water. I sufficed
on this for three days.

1 The Ban Hshim are the children of Wuhaybs brother, Hshim.

2 Rasl-e Ramat p. 49, Row al-Anf with reference to Srat al-Nab vol. 1 p. 245

8
The Sh scholar, Mull Bqir Majlis also writes:

It is narrated in the Tafsr of Imm asan al-Askar that the disbelievers

of the Quraysh forced Raslullh H to take refuge in the valley of Ab
lib and they appointed guards at the entrance to the valley who stopped
any provision from going in. The companions of Raslullh H (Ban
Hshim and non-Ban Hshim) experienced difficulty. They complained
of hunger to Raslullh H, so Allah E brought down food for them
that was better than Mann and Salw of the Ban Isrl and whoever among
them desired to eat any type of fruit, or clothing, it would reach them.1

We learn that the abah of Raslullh H endured the poverty stricken

conditions, and no provision could reach them from outside. This is because the
disbelievers had appointed guards, such that even if someone tried to assist the
Muslims, he was unable to; making any form of trade or assistance impossible.

With regards to the third issue, Rowat al-Saf (vol. 2 p. 49) states:

After the Muslims entered the valley, they had to endure extremely
difficult conditions. If any of the Muslims wandered out of the valley, the
disbelievers would assault them; and none of them were allowed to leave
the valley, except during the season of ajj and umrah. Even during the
ajj season, hard-hearted polytheists like Ab Jahl, Nar ibn rith, ibn
Wil, Uqbah ibn Ab Mut and others would stand on the roads and tell
the people who would bring food items to sell in Makkah: Whoever of you
sells to Muammad and his companions, his wealth will be destroyed.

If they saw any of the abah of Raslullh H buying during the visiting
season or during tawf, they would increase the price until the poor Muslim
became despondent.

Now, be just and explain, in these conditions, how could a Muslim have the ability

1 ayt al-Qulb vol. 2 p. 311

9
to buy anything and send it to Raslullh H? How could he be saved from
being captured by the disbelievers? There was one of two choices; either the
sympathetic disbelievers would do this, as is mentioned in the question, or they
smuggled the aid into the valley. How could such secret activity have reached us
in the form of narrations?

Assuming that Sayyidun Ab Bakr I and Sayyidun Umar I (if it is

accepted that they were not in the valley with Raslullh H) or any
other Muslim managed to get grain and water to the Muslims, then how could
news of this reach us? Aside from having to conceal their activities from the
polytheist guards, they still saw no need to relate their activities to anyone since
Muslims assist each other (and do not feel the need to inform everyone of their
generosity).

However, with regards to others such as Zuhayr ibn Umayyah, who was of the
disbelievers who sent aid to the Muslims and attempted to end the boycott it
would only be befitting to recount their assistance, which in turn formed part
history. The believers according to the Shah; viz. Sayyidun Ammr, Sayyidun
Miqdd and Sayyidun Ab Dhar al-Ghiffr M were also non-Hshim. Is this
deed proven from them also? If it cannot be, then is it not bias to only direct
this criticism towards Sayyidun Ab Bakr and Sayyidun Umar L only?
In essence, the entire Ban Hshim, except for Ab Lahab and his sons were
imprisoned, accompanied with a number of abah M. Those Muslims who
did not accompany them were under house arrest, and none of them were free to
trade. The manner in which they survived and lived is unknown to us. Sayyidun
Ab Bakr and Sayyidun Umar L were imprisoned with Raslullh H
and suffered alongside him. Even if they were in their homes, then too they were
under house arrest.

When no one could speak openly, no one could trade, and there were harsh
restrictions on meeting with Raslullh H; only the lovers and sympathisers
can imagine the difficulty experienced. What will those who harbour hatred and
malice for the abah M and Ahl al-Bayt know of this? They only know how
10
to criticise and hurt the heart of Raslullh H.

The Hardships Endured by Sayyidun Ab Bakr and Sayyidun Umar

The Sh objectors intend to paint a picture of the Ban Hshim being the
sole targets of the persecution of the disbelievers, while Sayyidun Ab Bakr,
Sayyidun Umar and the other abah M endured nothing; whereas the
reality is contrary to this. There were a few people of the Ban Hshim who were
blessed with mn in the initial stages, and they too enjoyed the protection of
Ab lib, who was the head of the family and followed the same religion as the
Quraysh, thus shielding them from the persecution.

The disbelievers honoured him and they would barely harm any member of the
Ban Hshim. The real difficulty was borne by the slaves, such as Sayyidun Ysir,
Sayyidun Ammr ibn Ysir, Sayyidah Sumayyah, Sayyidun Bill, Sayyidun
Ab Fakiyyah, Sayyidah Zinnrah, Sayyidun Khabbb ibn Arat, Sayyidun Ab
Dhar al-Ghiffr, Sayyidun Zubayr ibn Awwm, Sayyidun alah ibn Ubayd
Allh, Sayyidun Sad ibn Zayd and his wife Sayyidah Fimah bint al-Khab,
Sayyidun Musab ibn Umayr, and Sayyidun Uthmn ibn Man M. Aside
from Sayyidun Ab Dhar and Sayyidun Ammr L, the Shah have no
consideration for any of the others.

Although Sayyidun Ab Bakr and Sayyidun Umar L were nobles of their

families, they were made the foremost targets of persecution, on account of
their allegiance to their beloved leader, Sayyidun Muammad H. A few
examples will be presented:

1. The Sh scholar Al ibn s al-Arbl writes:

Nowfal ibn Khuwaylid was the harshest in his enmity for Raslullh H.
Before hijrah, he tied alah and Ab Bakr with a rope and punished them
11
 from morning till night, until people began to ask with regards to them.1

2. Sayyidah ishah J narrates that when there were thirty-eight

abah M with Raslullh H, then Sayyidun Ab Bakr I

insisted that now we will openly preach. Raslullh H said: O Ab

Bakr, we are few in number right now. However, Sayyidun Ab Bakr I
insisted, and subsequently, Raslullh H began preaching openly.
Sayyidun Ab Bakr I (one day) stood up to preach and Raslullh
H was also present. He was the first khab in Islam that called to
Allah and His Rasl H. The mushrikn pounced on Sayyidun Ab
Bakr I and the Muslims from all sides, and they mercilessly assaulted
them. They struck Sayyidun Ab Bakr I savagely and trampled upon
him. Utbah ibn Rabah came close to Sayyidun Ab Bakr I and struck
him with his shoes. He also hit him on the face, and on his back. Sayyidun
Ab Bakr I was so injured that his face could not be recognised. He
fell unconscious, and when he regained consciousness, he first enquired
about the well-being of Raslullh H.2

3. When Sayyidun Umar I became a Muslim, then he would go to the

gatherings of the disbelievers and openly announce: I testify that there
is none worthy of worship but Allah and I testify that Muammad is His
servant and Rasl. All the disbelievers would fall upon him. Sayyidun
Umar I would fight them by himself until the sun would reach
its zenith. Sayyidun Umar I would get tired, sit down and say: Do
whatever you want. I take an oath in the name of Allah, if we become three
hundred, then we shall overpower or you will remain.3

4. When the entire city prepared to kill Sayyidun Umar I when he

accepted Islam, and he was forced to seclude himself in his home, then

1 Kashf al-Ghummah of Al ibn s al-Arbl al-Sh p. 245

2 ayt al-abah vol. 1 p. 290
3 Ibid vol. 1 p. 296

12
 Ab Umar ibn Wil al-Sahm came and drove the disbelievers away
from him.1

5. Muammad ibn Ibrhm al-Taym says that when Sayyidun Uthmn

I accepted Islam, then his uncle, akam ibn Ab al- ibn Umayyah,
tied him in ropes and said: You have turned to a new religion, away from
the religion of your forefathers? By Allah, I shall keep you tied as long as
you do not leave this religion. Sayyidun Uthmn I said: I shall never
leave this religion. When akam saw his resolute state, he left him.2

Besides Raslullh H, we do not have knowledge of such incidents from

Sayyidun Al I or any other of the Ban Hshim.

Sayyidun Ab al- Would Send Provisions

Evil be upon stubbornness and fanaticism. The objector, mentions Zuhayr ibn
Umayyah, but does not mention Sayyidun Ab al- ibn Rab I the
son-in-law of Raslullh H to be among those who sent financial aid.
He was the husband of Sayyidah Zaynab bint Raslillh J and the nephew
of Sayyidah Khadjah J. If he were to have been mentioned, then the Sh
allegations would have been reduced to dust.

Bqir al-Majlis mentions him in high esteem when discussing the incident of the
valley:

And Ab al- ibn Rab, who was the son-in-law of Raslullh H, would
load wheat and dates on a camel and take it to the entrance of the valley.
He would call and the camel would enter the valley. (The Muslims would
unload the grain), then Ab al- I would return. This is the reason
why Raslullh H would say: Ab al- gave due consideration to
being our son-in-law.3

1 Bukhr
2 Ibn Sad, vol. 3 p. 37
3 ayt al-Qulb, vol. 2 p. 311, the Sh book, Ilm al-War (p. 61) has the same words.

13
It is worthy of note that Raslullh H referred to Sayyidun Ab al-
I as his son-in-law (praising him while doing so), and he said with regards to

Sayyidun Uthmn Dh al-Nrayn I, after the demise of Sayyidah Ruqayyah

and Sayyidah Umm Kulthm L: If I had another daughter, I would have
married her to Uthmn.

This particular incident is narrated with authentic chains of narration in the

biographical and historical accounts of both the Ahl al-Sunnah and Shah.
Thus, the Sh denial of the other son-in-laws of Raslullh H, and
their disparagement of them, is a blatant dishonesty; and according to our
knowledge not a single reliable Sh author, historian or muaddith ever
denied the existence of the daughters of Raslullh H or his sons in-laws.
The detailed texts with regards to this will be presented shortly.

14